An Editor’s Biggest
‘Uh-Uh!’ Moments
I’ve been asked to briefly discuss a few
of those things that, when receiving a story or book submission from an author,
will cause even hardened editors to weep and will necessitate the rejection of
a manuscript, no matter its ‘potential.’
So, here are two of the biggest ‘Uh-Uh’ moments that editors encounter
when receiving manuscript submissions and which writers should learn to avoid.
First, there seems to be an
all-too-prevalent myth circulating that so long as a writer’s story is ‘great,’
[frequently so, and solely, determined by
the judgment of the writer and a few trusted and friendly ‘first readers’]
the writer need not worry about such things as proper spelling, grammar, and/or
punctuation and that a writer need not even proof their manuscript, or bother
to rewrite/revise a first draft before submitting it – “because that’s what editors are for and it is their job to make all
such corrections.” Uh-Uh! If an editor begins to read a manuscript and
begins to encounter error after error, numerous typos, spelling and punctuation
errors, and/or bad grammar, all of these act to keep pulling the editor out of
the actual story. And most editors will rapidly reach a point where they will
simply stop reading and set aside the manuscript. There is virtually always a
very large pile of submissions in an editor’s “In Box” and editors are also
usually under tight deadlines and time pressures. It is far easier to toss
aside a problematical manuscript and reach for the next one, knowing that there
will likely be more than sufficient numbers of manuscripts in that pile that
have obviously been rewritten/refined and proofed to the extent that it is
obvious some care was put into the presentation of the manuscript—combined with
the manuscript also telling a good story.
In short: don’t submit first drafts of work that you’ve not bothered to proof
yourself or have proofed by someone else—who knows what they are doing—for
obvious, common errors. This isn’t to say that the manuscript must be
perfect—merely that even after a preliminary review for errors, while some
errors will invariably still exist within the manuscript, they won’t appear in
such numbers and/or so egregiously that they both undermine the integrity of
the work and obviously indicate to the editor that the writer really does not
care about the work being submitted. Editors want to feel that the writer cares
deeply about whatever work he or she is submitting, and has cared enough to
make it the best it can be. When the number of obvious, easily discernable such
errors on a page begin to exceed the number of paragraphs on the page (and we sometimes encounter manuscripts where
these errors begin to exceed the number of sentences on the page), that
manuscript is in trouble...Yeah, I hear all you neophyte/newer authors out
there whispering—and yes, it is true that a Stephen King or Ramsey Campbell or
Clive Barker could get away with turning in a manuscript filled with such
errors without fear of rejection. However, it is part of what makes them the
successful authors they are that they don’t and didn’t submit such ‘lazy’ work
in the first place.
Lastly, some writers are under the
impression that if they take some of the most popular elements from various
then currently in vogue stories and/or sub-genres within the horror genre and
simply combine them, that this constitutes sufficiently original storytelling.
This usually leads to clichéd characters, hackneyed story lines, and plot
devices that seem to largely regurgitate what has already come before. Note
that we are not talking here about an author writing a new title for an
established, ongoing and popular series of books—as this constitutes a
well-recognized exception, where the audience actually wants to see/read
certain returning characters and situations; though even then, with additions
and variations on what’s preceded it.
Neither editors, publishers, nor readers
wish to read yet another work with the same stereotypical characters, with only
name changes, being placed within the same stereotypical situations. Uh-Uh!
Writers wishing to submit a manuscript that is likely to be purchased and
published will submit a manuscript that contains a unique aspect/hook/plot or character device that differentiates
their manuscript from everything that has preceded it.
In short: give us something original. Now, there are a myriad of
ways to go about this: sometimes this can be as easy as changing the sex, race,
age, species, etc. of your Protagonist and/or Antagonist, you can take some aspect
to an extreme, or raise the stakes, or use irony, or create a unique main
character/Protagonist, and/or any of a million other things—the range is as
unlimited as your creativity. Just try and provide the reader (and thus the
editor and publisher) with something
appreciably fresh/unconventional/dissimilar/transformative to that which has
already been done. Many times, just so altering a single character or plot
point or perspective can materially alter a story. The significant difference
here is similar to that between human reproduction as opposed to cloning: in
the former, the result is something unique, but which shares certain
characteristics of those that preceded and gave birth to it, while in the
latter, you merely wind up with a nearly-exact copy of that which preceded it.
Obviously, we’ve here only had the time
and space to barely scratch the surface of those things in a manuscript that
writers, especially the less experienced, should avoid turning in to editors. But
I hope it is of some value as a learning experience and as a starting point for
continued discussion. In which regard, in closing, though I don’t believe he
was entirely correct, I hope that you
will read and view what was written above through the prism of these words of
Marcus Aurelius (both a Philosopher and Roman Emperor!):
Norman L. Rubenstein
Senior Managing Editor-–JournalStone Publishing
Co-Chair—HWA Bram Stoker Awards® Committee
Rubenstein, a former litigation attorney
and Administrative Law Judge in Chicago, IL for over twenty years, brings to
JounalStone over seven years experience as an editor, magazine columnist,
horror literature and film reviewer, and author and is celebrating his first
anniversary as Senior Managing Editor at JournalStone Publishing. Rubenstein previously
organized and presented a number of large science fiction conventions in
conjunction with the BBC for their Doctor Who television series and was
featured on a nationally televised segment of the Entertainment Tonight
TV show back in the 1980′s. He went on to co-produce ten stage plays including
one, Murder By Misadventure, that ran upon London’s famed West End for
six months, and a world premiere of an A. R. Gurney play, The Fourth Wall,
starring George Segal and Betty Buckley in Chicago.
As an author, Rubenstein has had
extensive work published in numerous publications, including Cemetery Dance,
Dark Scribe, Dark Discoveries, and Shroud Magazines, has
written regular columns for Fear Zone and Shroud, is and/or has
been a regular reviewer for Horror World and Hellnotes as well as serving a stint as the Reviewer
for the Pod Of Horror podcast hosted by author and professional radio
host, Mark Justice, and is a frequent convention speaker, panelist, and
moderator.
As an author, Rubenstein has also had
short fiction stories he’s co-written published in the anthologies Fear Of
The Dark, by Horror Bound Magazine Publications (“The Closet” co-authored
with Carol Weekes, 20111) and the recent prestigious charity anthology, Horror
for Good, Cutting Block Press (“The Widows Laveau” with Steven Booth,
2012), which anthology is a Finalist for the 2012 Bram Stoker Award®. Rubenstein’s
work has also appeared in the prominent David Morrell and Hank Wagner edited
hardcover Anthology, Thrillers: 100 Must Reads from Oceanview Publishing
(2010), and the “Editor’s Foreword” to the Dark Regions Press lettered
hardcover edition of Gene O’Neill’s HWA Bram Stoker Award® winning collection
Taste Of Tenderloin (2012).
As an editor, Rubenstein has been the
editor for numerous works by many prominent authors, including novels,
novellas, and collections, a number of which have been named as Finalists for
the Bram Stoker Awards®, and one work that went on to win the Bram Stoker
Award. Over the last seven years, Rubenstein has edited well over thirty books
by authors including: Allyson Bird, Christopher Conlon, Edward Erdelac,
Gabrielle Faust, Jim Gavin, Angeline Hawkes, Michael Kelly, Brian Knight,
Edward Lee, Rena Mason, Michael McBride, James R. Moore, Lisa Morton, Weston
Ochse, William Ollie, Gene O’Neill, Anderson Prunty, Gina Ranalli, Gord Rollo,
Steven Savile, Harry Shannon, David Silva, Jeff Strand, Steve Vernon, Carol
Weekes, Wrath James White, and David Niall Wilson, among others.
Rubenstein is an active member of both
the International Thriller Writers (ITW) and Horror Writers Associations (HWA),
has been a member of and then served two years as Chair of the HWA’s Stoker
Additions Jury, completed a stint as the Chair of the 2011 HWA’s Stoker
Anthology Jury, and has most recently started his third year as Co-Chair of the
HWA’s Bram Stoker Awards™ Committee. He is also the editor of the Souvenir
Program Book for The Bram Stoker Awards® Weekend 2013 Incorporating The World
Horror Convention.
No comments:
Post a Comment